It is called the Kingdom of God, my friend. You presuppose that an hierarchy cannot labour through Love. This where I disagree. The fundamental nature of hierarchy is one of pedagogy. And it is the same pedagogy which manifests in the Logos and helps humans grow into better beings through submitting to the divine authority of Christ. As a child is beholden to his parents, you are beholden to the trinity. Such a submission is the purest example of human freedom. It is through hierarchy and discipline that man arrives at his end, which is salvation. So I say aid those below you, and obey to those above you; as is outlined in Romans 13.

@@rubeng9092 Hierarchies of VALUES are obviously necessary and good. Love is superior to hate, generosity to selfishness, etc. Hierarchies of people, however, are non-optimal, not only for those at the bottom, who are presumed to be of less importance often for arbitrary reasons that rooted in a lazy epistemology rooted in reflexive and primitive presuppositions, but also for those on the top who are unjustly over-burdened with responsibilities that should be shared in an egalitarian way. It is, in fact, this sharing of responsibilities that builds a community’s character. (Note: I acknowledge that in certain arenas, such as scholarship, there are necessarily elites or “hierarchs” who have more knowledge about certain topics, since they’ve dedicated their lives to studying, and this is all well and good, but when it comes to overall social health, collective effort and solidarity is demonstrably better, both psychologically and spiritually, than inflexible divisions of labor, respect, etc.)

@@waylonwraith5266 No man is unjustly over-burdened by responsibilities. For just like every gift, every responsibillity was alloted by the most high. Hierarchies of people were given to us, for we were created with different gifts and thus have to bear different crosses and responsibilities. Flat shared responsibility is the death of accountabillity, and without accountabillity, men are easy to give way to their lower passions. That doesn't mean you cannot help those beneath you and partake in their struggles for their own benefit. Being placed in a hierarchy above another individual doesn't make you automatically evil, it is how you make use of this situation that determines whether or not you were fit to be in this position or are a selfish or irresponsible being.

@@rubeng9092 Survival of the fittest (and the culture of “fitness” and “ambition” it has spawned, which leads to brutality, exploitation, and tribalism) is [social-] Darwinist, ableist and animalistic; a contemptible failure to embrace the one and only REAL responsibility there actually IS: MORAL responsibility, which by its very nature is egalitarian, since we ALL should be as near to morally perfect as possible, regardless of aptitudes. Many on the contemporary “left” might make excuses and justifications for the moral failings of people exploited and oppressed at the bottom of such toxic hierarchies. I do not, but I do recognize that hierarchies are merely natural, not divine; merely animalistic, not angelic; merely creaturely, not Godly. Christ, as an epitome of Spiritual perfection, transcends the merely natural processes, which are fallen and viciously ableist. Real LOVE does away with hierarchies, which are rooted in fear, a scarcity mentality, divisive competition as opposed to unitive cooperation, and the rote divisions of labor that have historically accompanied these anti-spiritual reflexes. Hence Christ’s saying to “Take no thought for the morrow.” You’re making excuses for a condescending, ape-like attitude that is antithetical to love, possibly in order to self-servingly congratulate yourself for worldly accomplishments that ultimately have nothing to do with the mystical experience of self-transcending love that Christ, like Simone Weil, invite us to move beyond nature and mere survival to embrace. The Gospel literally shows that love is more important than mere survival, and thus more important than lazy hierarchies that supposedly make things “efficient“ etc.

@@waylonwraith5266 Moral responsibility is not anti-hierarchical in the least. We are below God, we are mere sinners, our responsibility to him is thus in it's very nature hierarchical, as is the student's to his loving teacher. Your conflation of hierarchy and Social Darwinism is false. Social Darwinism only arises when there is a lack of formalized hierarchy; which is to say when there is war and conflict over order and collaboration. Any real form of collaboration must by it's very nature entail also a hierarchy, for collaboration means putting aside once differences and subjugating yourself lovingly to the whole and the role you are given in this whole. That doesn't mean that there isn't also an egalitarian impulse within any social order, for we do give ourselves over to each other to begift us with the utmost love and respect(if we can that is, and aren't corrupted), and do what we must to ensure everyone's well-being. But our egalitarian impulse lives through the hierarchy, not against it. True authority, in fact, means nothing else but being the first one to obey. When heaven and earth meet, when we are able to bear our cross to the end, then we gain freedom through obedience, as did the Son when he followed the Father("For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.") So it is to us to weep in Gethsemane, and follow through with what is the highest will, even if we sweat blood in doing so; to wish for equality and in so doing accept hierarchy. For these two will not be opposed in the kingdom to come. Anyone who rejects hierarchy in so doing throws away his cross, flees the world and says he acted in Christ, will not enter Heaven.

As with most things in life, I think is a 'both-and' situation and not an 'either-or.'

@@freddyruto3139 fair point. It's just a matter on where the priorities are.

Reason and volition should also be used to subjugate such sins as self-serving pride, greed, prejudice, exploitation of others, etc. that in a so-called masculine dynamic lead to a competition-as-opposed-to-cooperation based set of reflexive presuppositions, behaviors and beliefs. Reason and volition have historically revealed the limits and fundamental flaws of traditional-mindedness itself. Hence the turning AWAY from conventions in the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment. It’s no accident that the apotheosis of authentic Christian spirituality occurred with Quakerism around the same time, with egalitarian mutual respect and love, critique of slavery, critique of sexism, etc. Conservatism wishes to have it’s cake and eat it too when it conflates reason (which has historically destabilized the intellectually lazy assumptions of the [often hierarchical] status quo) with traditional-mindedness. I would highly encourage you to subject your subjective preference for rigid, predictable systems to considerably more criticism if you’re actually interested in truth, the counterintuitive fruits of philosophy, and , most importantly, Love Itself as best exemplified in Christlikeness.